[AnnaMolly]

In the wild, a man's "choice" of mate was usually determined by the woman's ability to be as dumb and submissive as possible, so that she would obey him in any given situation. A non-obeying woman was obviously a liability, seeing how she'd be prone to eating bad apples from strange snakes without asking twice, and other such nonsense.

Another important factor was that the woman was healthy and super duper good at baby making. This was needed because at least every second child used to die either at birth or before reaching the age of five. So, you'd had to make a couple extra babies just to be sure your awesome genes would perservere. Without any knowledge about medicine, wild men used to try and assess the health of a woman by her looks, which was obviously a very unprecise and unreliable method.



In today's world, however, intelligence and good social skills are generally the most valuable traits to have. Seeing how at least the former is for a good part inheritable, shouldn't men change their mate selections, away from stupid submissive women, to intelligent assertive ones?

Also, seeing how it's a highly unreliable method to try and gauge someone's health and intelligence based on their looks, shouldn't men stop paying attention to women's looks? Who needs big breasts in today's world? That's right, no one does. Big brains is what it's all about, if you want to produce the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.
And who cares about a less than optimal waist to hip ratio? Just get that mini genius out with a C-section, problem solved.

Actually, to the men preferring pretty women: how dare you. You risk producing less worthy offspring that may look somewhat good, but isn't able to perform to the standard that's necessary to become really successful.
You value your own momentary pleasure over the future of following generations. You personally stand in the way of humankind developing to a more advanced level. You should be ashamed, and I question your right to make good choices.



So today, given how many non-intelligent kids and people we have, do you think men should refocus their mate selections?



(This thread is actually only meant partially sarcastic. There's a legitimate point to the question.)




edit: I should add as a disclaimer that I do not actually believe that the "quality" of possible offspring is even close to being the most important thing when choosing a partner.

However, since reproduction is very often brought up in discussions I like this as a serious argument, I think if people feel the need to pay any attention to "producing" good offspring, it should indeed be focused on intelligence more than anything else.

I find it very irritating, to say the least, to always read "the alpha chooses from the best women" and similar things. In contexts like that, "best" is always almost completely synonymous with "prettiest". I would like to question that.

[Distance]

While I'm smiling a bit at the irony, quite frankly, I don't really care who the average man litters with. I've done my duty to society with a C-section son who's athletic and near genius IQ level so these guys can breed with someone else!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Hiro]

Taking this thread seriously, I think I should start by saying that being attractive and intelligent are not mutually exclusive traits, and as such the man chasing skirts is not completely horrible. What I find shameful is when a guy values stupidity in their partner rather than intelligence. I can understand wanting your partner to be below or at your intelligence, but not so much as to think they're stupid.

As for your first point, that's not going to happen for a very long time. We have more accurate means to access worth now, but we still have these primitive systems in place that are used to pick our partner. We are biologically programmed to respond to these "healthy" people, and that isn't going to be changed very easily.

I guess the main problem here is that it's an instinctive reaction, and to just tell your instincts to fuck off, is about as effective as trying to go without eating for a couple of days. The only way this is going to happen is if we start enough peer pressure to counter-act the biology.

[psykhe]

	Originally Posted by AnnaMolly
	In the wild, a man's "choice" of mate was usually determined by the woman's ability to be as dumb and submissive as possible, so that she would obey him in any given situation. A non-obeying woman was obviously a liability, seeing how she'd be prone to eating bad apples from strange snakes without asking twice, and other such nonsense.

Such tirade, my dear.

	So today, given how many non-intelligent kids and people we have, do you think men should refocus their mate selections?

Is this a question for men or both sexes?

	You should be ashamed, and I question your right to make good choices.

And what's your POV re "house husbands"?

[Ravendicon]

Sexual selection drives evolution, and drives what males are attracted to. You cannot forcefully control something as old and powerful ingrained in the male mind as attraction. Some things are beyond the control of the conscious mind.

Should I ignore physical attraction, focusing instead on the woman with the most attractive personality and stable emotional state? Probably. But, then again, there is a hot blonde across the room with giant boobs. My mammalian brain says: go for her! I could resist it, and often do; but it is a powerful driving force for men, and for women. You can't toss a million years of evolution aside overnight, simply because you've been living in a "civilized" culture for the past 10,000 years. Evolution is self-correcting. If were smart enough, maybe we will pick the ugly girl with the great personality a few thousand years from now. But...probably not.

[Distance]

In case people have missed it, this thread is a parody of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
but with a serious note.

[AnnaMolly]

	Originally Posted by Hiro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Taking this thread seriously, I think I should start by saying that being attractive and intelligent are not mutually exclusive traits

I'm fully aware of that, obviously. My concern is about the primary preference. Obviously there's no harm in choosing the better looking woman out of a sample of women of equal intelligence. However, choosing the most intelligent one out of a sample of women of equal physical attractiveness, or even simply choosing *the* physically most attractive one with no regards to intelligence, is not going to help in "producing" intelligent offspring.

	Originally Posted by Hiro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can understand wanting your partner to be below or at your intelligence

I can't. Really. When a man declares that he'd rather have a woman much dumber than him than much smarter, that signifies great personal insecurity to me, and not the kind of insecurity I find endearing. A guy like that would probably try to prohibit me from being better than him in anything, cause otherwise he'll feel his manliness threatened. Thus greatly reducing my quality of life. Not to mention me not being able to respect a man like that.
That kind of attitude is pretty much an instant dealbreaker.




I'll respond to the arguments about "instincts" later. I really need to catch some sleep.

@ True Rune below me: have a look at the link Distance posted.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

@ TheBigPicture below me: Right, many would call it "femininity" instead. It mostly boils down to "submissiveness", though. Disclaimer: This is NOT supposed to be a discussion about femininity, whatsoever. We have more than one thread about that already.

[True Rune]

People aren't trying to have kids for the most part, they just want a sexual outlet (and maybe companionship, maybe.) So all these good mom traits don't matter to a guy jes tryin' to get some poo nanny~

[TheBigPicture]

Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In the wild, a man's "choice" of mate was usually determined by the woman's ability to be as dumb and submissive as possible, so that she would obey him in any given situation. A non-obeying woman was obviously a liability, seeing how she'd be prone to eating bad apples from strange snakes without asking twice, and other such nonsense. (This thread is actually only meant partially sarcastic. There's a legitimate point to the question.)

This is an extreme generalization. The process of attraction is much more complex then is she stupid and submissive.

---------- Post added 12-19-2011 at 02:23 AM ----------

Personally, at least an average intelligence is a requirement in my woman. I do like her to be somewhat submissive(not to much) but I feel that stems from the fact that I personally like to control situations as opposed to it being because I am a man.

[Tengu]

Don't need a steady mate so having this context in plain sight here it goes:

Step 1: is she sexually easy on the eyes?
Step 2: does her moves and clothes imply some intelligence? (can't "do" stupid women if my life would depend on it)
Step 3: what kind of crowd is around her, if any?
Step 4: approach
Step 5a: success
Step 5b: fail
Step 5c: has depth -> open up a lil and see what happens next

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by psykhe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Such tirade, my dear.

She's parodying another thread, sugar.

[Senseofrelief]

Oh, how clever, a parody of another thread.

In retort, I will parody the responses from the other thread.

'I want choice, I want choice, I want choice'

'You have the choice, so how would you choose.'

'I want choice, I want choice, I want choice'

'You sound like a robot'

'I want choice, I want choice, I want choice'.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can't. Really. When a man declares that he'd rather have a woman much dumber than him than much smarter, that signifies great personal insecurity to me, and not the kind of insecurity I find endearing. A guy like that would probably try to prohibit me from being better than him in anything, cause otherwise he'll feel his manliness threatened. Thus greatly reducing my quality of life. Not to mention me not being able to respect a man like that. That kind of attitude is pretty much an instant dealbreaker.

For me, it's the intelligence gap that becomes incredibly apparently when you're dating someone who's smarter than you. It's not that I wouldn't date someone smarter than me, it's just I can tolerate a lot more in the opposite direction than above me. The reason I can understand people who date lower in intelligence, is because of this difference in tensions.

There is something fundamentally wrong with people wanting someone incredibly stupid in comparison to their level of intelligence. Not only are huge gaps of intelligence horrendous on communication between partners, but it fosters a sort of codependent situation, the girl obeying the guy without questioning his ideas. Either because it's not acceptable, or because she really doesn't want to. Insecurity tends to run rampant in any situation that codependency is acceptable in.

For the record, I prefer a partner to be on the same level of intelligence as me. Communication's a lot easier that way.

[Uber10]

	Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In the wild, a man's "choice" of mate was usually determined by the woman's ability to be as dumb and submissive as possible[/i]

LOL. Go back to your books. You have it all wrong. Alpha males are most attracted by alpha females.

Now that's hot

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Polymath20]

	So today, given how many non-intelligent kids and people we have, do you think men should refocus their mate selections?

There are just as many intelligent people, per capita, as there have ever been. This is a much discussed point - not everyone needs to be a genius for society to function. Us smart people need a bunch of mindless worker drones beneath us to support us!

	Also, seeing how it's a highly unreliable method to try and gauge someone's health and intelligence based on their looks,

Not sure where you read that. You can pretty much gauge everything you need to know about someone's health just on their looks. Furthermore, within a few words of speaking to someone you can gauge their approximate intelligence. The way they dress can illustrate their social status and how they perceive themselves.

	That's right, no one does. Big brains is what it's all about, if you want to produce the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

Actually those are all cut-throat assholes who have no compunctions against stealing, exploiting, and otherwise using everyone around them as pawns.

[Rivers]

Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Another important factor was that the woman was healthy and super duper good at baby making. This was needed because at least every second child used to die either at birth or before reaching the age of five. So, you'd had to make a couple extra babies just to be sure your awesome genes would perservere. Without any knowledge about medicine, wild men used to try and assess the health of a woman by her looks, which was obviously a very unprecise and unreliable method.

This is irrelevant in modern times. Plus, kids are expensive and people don't find people just for having children.

	In today's world, however, intelligence and good social skills are generally the most valuable traits to have. Seeing how at least the former is for a good part inheritable, shouldn't men change their mate selections, away from stupid submissive women, to intelligent assertive ones?

Oh, really? Since when? Loudmouths and ass kissers will bury you in no time. Intelligence is great but I don't really want to be constantly intellectually challanged by my spouse, I get challenged every day. I want a nurturer, not Einstein.

	Who needs big breasts in today's world? That's right, no one does. Big brains is what it's all about, if you want to produce the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. And who cares about a less than optimal waist to hip ratio? Just get that mini genius out with a C-section, problem solved.

Sarcasm? Big breasts > brains.

Actually, to the men preferring pretty women: how dare you. You risk producing less worthy offspring that may look somewhat good, but isn't able to perform to the standard that's necessary to become really successful. You value your own momentary pleasure over the future of following generations. You personally stand in the way of humankind developing to a more advanced level. You should be ashamed, and I question your right to make good choices.

Likewise.

	However, since reproduction is very often brought up in discussions I like this as a serious argument, I think if people feel the need to pay any attention to "producing" good offspring, it should indeed be focused on intelligence more than anything else.

Come on, people barely know how to put on a condom.

	I find it very irritating, to say the least, to always read "the alpha chooses from the best women" and similar things. In contexts like that, "best" is always almost completely synonymous with "prettiest". I would like to question that.[/i]

They get the best quantity, not quality, they know that, it doesn't bother them because they get booty.

[Zethariel]

The "I like intelligent people" works both ways -- and both sexes may feel either daunted (by intelligence) or undeserving (of such intelligence) of their partner.

How can you really tell if someone is stupid or not? Because they can't answer a riddle? Because they have a low IQ? Because they lol all the time or are trollish? We all have our times in the continuum when we come across as dumb -- point is, that the impression we leave while doing that may be the only one left behind in another's mind.

These people live the same way we do, give or take social standards/money/whatever criterium you wish. Their minds are different, not inferior. They are a mystery that is beyond our grasp. Does that make us stupid (for not understanding them the way they do themselves)?

In the end, we select our mates based on whim, be it volountary or not. It is a synergy of the concious mind, thinking about clothes, intelligence, emotions etc, and the subconcious mind receiving pheromones, subtle signals and procuring chemicals that infatuate or disgust us.

[LadySpock]

	Originally Posted by Hiro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can understand wanting your partner to be below or at your intelligence...

Why can you understand someone wanting a mate who is below their intellignece?

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why can you understand someone wanting a mate who is below their intellignece?

It's less intimidating.

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by Senseofrelief To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, how clever, a parody of another thread. In retort, I will parody the responses from the other thread. 'I want choice, I want choice, I want choice' 'You have the choice, so how would you choose.' 'I want choice, I want choice, I want choice' 'You sound like a robot' 'I want choice, I want choice, I want choice'.

Cool I'll parody the male responses:

"Stupid bitches don't deserve choice"

"Stupid bitches don't deserve choice"

"God damn bitches who don't get how great I am don't deserve choice"

"Bitches who don't choose me because I'm an alpha male don't deservice choice"

"Stupid bitches don't deserve choice"

Fun!

[Muse]

Personally I like B and C cup.

My primary objective with relationships/mate selection is happiness, not procreation.

Smart girls are fun to talk to. Assertive girls make me be the leader less when we are together (which is great because I have to be the leader at work and in hobbies usually).

I have a hard time seeing past obesity romantically. It's just unatractive to me.

A lot of a womans looks is clothing selection and other such accessories. So I don't worry about looks too much.

[Jinxu]

Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, to the men preferring pretty women: how dare you. You risk producing less worthy offspring that may look somewhat good, but isn't able to perform to the standard that's necessary to become really successful. You value your own momentary pleasure over the future of following generations. You personally stand in the way of humankind developing to a more advanced level. You should be ashamed, and I question your right to make good choices. So today, given how many non-intelligent kids and people we have, do you think men should refocus their mate selections?

Don't care about future generations. That's evolution's problem. The d*** wants what the d*** wants.

[Paragon19]

I don't like the opening post in this topic, so I'm going to pretend it asked a non-biased, non-leading question like, "Men, what do you find you prefer in women? Are looks the most important? Is intelligence? Is a mix necessary? What other traits are desireable?" and continue from there.

Allow me to tell what I hope is an interesting anecdote: The first girl I ever kissed was from a different town, and at 17, I was just desperate to stop being the permanently single guy. After about two months, I called off the silly "relationship" we both thought we had (we saw each other three times total). It didn't really make a big impact on either of us.

A few years later, she started talking to me again, expressing disappointment that we never "sealed the deal" as it were. For some reason I hadn't before, I realized almost immediately how dull she was mentally, and felt almost ashamed I had been at all involved with her before.

Of all the women I have dated since then, none have been ugly or unattractive, nor have they been unable to participate in a good philosophical conversation, and capable of understanding complex abstract concepts on par with my own ability. I'm also unsure as to whether I actually want to procreate period.

I've never been especially interested in large breasts though, its more about proportions. And dat ass.

[NicholasIv]

When you consider the entirety of human existence to be stupid and unworthy of reproduction, mate selection becomes purely preference.

In the middle you believe some humans, ideally including yourself, are worth keeping good genes around, given that your own genes are being passed on mate selection is purely preference.

Alternatively, if you believe falsely that humans are each special and deserve to have their genes preserved, mate selection becomes purely preference.

Made a spectrum where on one end, purely preference, in the middle it's purely preference, and on the other end, purely preference, it seems to come down to preference.

[Fishism]

I want to have hot, selfish, intense sex with the woman in Seriously's avatar and then immediately roll over and go to sleep. But that's just the instinctual rantings of my penis that I'm constantly aware of but I'm smart enough to acknowledge as being the simplest foundation of my biological existence on this planet. I won't apologize for superficially loving the female form and the wonderful things it does, including making babies, but at the same time, I'm not defined or restricted by my fundamental urges. I've evolved socially enough to ignore my little head, especially where the choice for what woman I choose to be my partner in child rearing is concerned. Not only does a woman have to be physically healthy enough to have a child, but she has to be intellectually capable enough to show that she's taking the responsibility of parenting and raising that child as seriously as I am. The world doesn't need more babies, it needs better ones, and that's going to require much more than a functioning reproductive system.